DOCSLIB.ORG

Copyright Non-Practicing Entities and the Group Registration Process for Photographs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

COMMENT I WANT TO BE A NON-PRODUCER: COPYRIGHT NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES AND THE GROUP REGISTRATION PROCESS FOR PHOTOGRAPHS JACK VIDOVICH* TABLE OF CONTENTS In trodu ction ............................................................................................... 680 I. The Rise of the Internet and Its Effects on Copyrights .................. 686 A. High Fidelity to the Law: Technology's Influence on Copyright ...................................................... 686 B. Basic Economics of Intellectual Property ........................... 689 C. Economics of the Internet and Digitization ....................... 690 II. The Group Registration Process at the Copyright Office .............. 691 A. The Purpose of Group Registration .................................. 691 B. The Process of Group Registration .................................... 692 C. Notice and the Group Registration Process ....................... 693 D . The Alaska Stock Loophole .................................................. 694 J.D. Candidate, 2015, American University Washington College of Law. I would like to thank Professor PeterJaszi for his invaluable guidance and insight. I would also like to thank Professors Brandon Butler, Robert Kasunic, and Amanda Leiter for their valuable feedback on various sections of this Comment. All errors are the author's and the author's alone. Although this is unorthodox, the author's note is a salient place to demonstrate one of the points of this Comment. I had initially requested that the name be left blank, but I agree with the editors that explaining my thought process instead is more informative. If the Administrative Law Review had not provided my name, how would the general public determine who authored and owned this work? Additionally, if the law review had not indicated any copyright formalities, would that affect how the public believed it could use this work? ADMINISTRATIVE LA WREVIEW [66:3 III. Springtime for NPEs: A Favorable Technological and E conom ic C lim ate .......................................................................... 695 A. The Problem with NPEs .................................................... 695 B. How N PEs O perate ........................................................... 697 C . N PEs' T hreat V alue .......................................................... 700 IV . Proposed Solutions ......................................................................... 704 A . Law ................................................................................... 70 5 B . Social N orm s...................................................................... 711 C . Architecture ....................................................................... 713 1. Mandatory Digital Filing and Metadata ..................... 714 2. Reverse Image Search Engine ..................................... 717 D. Completing the Circuit: The Death of the Author and Working around Alaska Stock .............................................. 719 C on clusion ................................................................................................. 723 INTRODUCTION In the Academy Award-winning 1967 comedy, "The Producers," protagonists Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom try to make a fortune by using shrewd business tactics to produce a guaranteed flop. ' Copyright non- practicing entities (NPEs), organizations that threaten infringers to induce 2 quick settlements, operate similarly when it comes to online photographs. A digital photo that may have little real market value on its own can be shrewdly managed and transformed into a profitable work with the threat of infringement proceedings. This tactic causes problems for society and the economy, which become even more complicated with the introduction of the group registration process for photos headed by the United States Copyright Office. The legal field is littered with examples of NPEs abusing loopholes in the current law. Notably, the Copyright Office currently does not require a list of all authors' names in a group registration of photos3 or any type of formality, such as a notice of copyright and date. 4 Other loopholes that aid NPEs include the ability to cite high statutory damages in threatening letters. 5 Settlements deprive innocent infringers of the substantial and 1. The Producers, INTERNET MOVIE DATABASE, http://www.imdb.com/title/ tt0063462/?ref =fn-al tt_2 (last visitedJune 2, 2014). 2. Cf Richard Chirgwin, Copyright Troll Prenda Law Accused of Seeding Own Torrents, THE REGISTER (June 6, 2013), http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/06/forensics- reveal_moreon.prenda lawstrolling-techniques/. 3. Infra Part II.D. 4. Infa note 161 (discussing the removal of formalities by the Berne Convention). 5. See infra Part III.C (discussing non-practicing entities' (NPEs') abuse of statutory damages). 2014] COPYRIGHTNON-PRACTICING EN7T77ES procedural safeguards of a trial. Righthaven LLC, a notorious NPE, filed a complaint against twenty- year-old blogger Brian Hill, claiming that Hill infringed one of the firm's copyrights when he reposted photos on his blog. 6 Hill could either face an expensive and uncertain trial with damages potentially reaching $150,000 if he is found guilty of willful infringement, or settle with Righthaven for $6,000. 7 NPEs do not always take this extreme damages approach, yet they use similar tactics to extract lower settlements. 8 Another NPE named Copyright Enforcement Group sued a fan that posted a photo of Lindsey Lohan to a celebrity fan site. 9 The same group went after bloggers who used unlicensed photos to decorate their blogs, demanding $500 for each infringing photo. 10 This Comment's thesis is not that the previously discussed actions do not constitute infringement-they do, with some exceptions." 1 But they are cases of "innocent infringement,"' 12 in which the infringing party is usually unaware that what she is doing is illegal, 13 or cases in which fair use, an exception to infringement, applies. Ignorance is no excuse to break the 6. Constance Boutsikaris, Comment, The Rise of Copyright Trolls in a Digital Information Economy: New Litigation Business Strategies and 7heir Impact on Innovation, 20 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 391, 391 (2012). 7. Id. 8. Mark A. Lemley & A. Douglas Melamed, Missing the Forestfor the Trolls, 113 COLUM. L. REV. 2117, 2126 (2012) (suggesting that smaller suits comprise an increasing segment of patent NPE suits). 9. Mike Masnick, Copyright Trolls Now Going After Random Bloggers Who Reposted Photos, TECHDIRT (July 11, 2013, 9:32 AM), http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130615/ 02094123486/copyright-trolls-now-going-after-random-bloggers-who-reposted photos.shtml; see also PATRICIA AUFDERHEIDE & PETERJASZI, RECLAIMING FAIR USE: How TO PUT BALANCE BACK IN COPYRIGHT 179 (2011) [hereinafter RECLAIMING FAIR USE] (arguing there may be a fair use defense if the user has a "repurposing reason" for posting Lohan's photo on a fan site). 10. Houstonlawy3r, CEG-TEK Is Now rour Friendly "Photo" Copyright Troll, TORRENTLAWYER (June 13, 2013), http://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/ceg- tek-akm-images-gsi-media-photo-image-copyright-trolls/. 11. To prove infringement, the claimant must show (1) ownership of a valid copyright, here a photo, and (2) unauthorized copyright of constituent parts of the original photo. See Masterfile Corp. v. Gale, No. 2:09-cv-966, 2011 WL 4702862, at *1 (D. Utah Oct. 4, 2011) (citation omitted). 12. 17 U.S.C. § 907 (2012). 13. This is not to imply that all parties pursued by NPEs are entirely innocent or ignorant. See, e.g., Brad A. Greenberg, Copyright Trolls and Presumptively Fair Uses, 85 U COLO. L. REV. 53, 83 (2014) ("Typically, the infringement is committed by those likely to think that copyright protection is much narrower in scope than it actually is and that a use is permissible if accompanied by any single factor cutting in favor of fair use."). ADMINISTRATIVE LA WREVIEW [66:3 law, but it would be Kafkaesque to leave the current legal system in place. 14 A system that grants unbalanced power to entities that do nothing to further artistic or scientific progress is absurd, and the Copyright Office should take the necessary steps to ameliorate this situation. The issue is one of fundamental fairness: should innocent infringers pay such high damages for such insignificant infringements, and should NPEs be allowed to continue exploiting the current copyright system unimpeded? NPEs obtain copyrights to works they did not create (hence the moniker "non-practicing") and enforce these rights against infringers. 15 At first glance, this practice does not appear problematic, 16 but its praxis is more insidious than the mere enforcement of a right to sue. NPEs use the threat of a lawsuit to induce quick settlement awards without the safeguards of a trial. Because most of these claims never make it to court, there is a dearth of public record on NPE tactics.' 7 Thus, when discussing NPEs' practices and how they take advantage of the group registration process for photos, it is necessary to speak somewhat speculatively and analogize the actions of NPEs in the patent forum. The process of suing for infringement consists of several steps and is further complicated by the group copyright registration process, which is commonly used in the digital photography context. 18 For any infringement proceeding, a work must first be registered with the Copyright Office. 19 14. Peter Singer, The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle, NEW INTERNATIONALIST (Apr. 1, 1997), httf://newint.org/features/1997/04/05/drowning/
Recommended publications
  • How Open Source Is Changing IP Risk in the Soft Ware Supply Chain

    How Open Source Is Changing IP Risk in the Soft Ware Supply Chain

    A New Wave of IP Risks: How Open Source is Changing IP Risk in the Software Supply Chain Table of Contents Introduction . 3 Brief Overview of Open Source and Where It Stands Today . 3 The Interplay Between Open Source and IP Risk: . 5 Understanding the Challenges Specific IP Risks in the Open Source Software Supply Chain . 7 Copyright Infringement . 7 Reputation . 9 Exposing IP Secrets . 10 Impacts on the Partner/Customer Relationship . 11 Patent Infringement . 12 Looking Ahead: The Future of Open Source Litigation . 13 Conclusion . 14 I. Introduction Open source software has been integrated into nearly is a testament to the success of open source, it also gives every industry and sector today . According to a 2016 rise to unique challenges for businesses, particularly in survey, approximately 90% of today’s organizations report the area of intellectual property . If a company cannot using open source software .1 That percentage has almost even find all of its open source code or identify its open certainly grown since . One likely reason for open source’s source dependencies, they are also likely unable to boom in popularity is the distinct cost savings it gives ensure that they are remaining compliant with open companies who use it .2 The use of open source software is source licenses and protecting themselves from business now so widespread that many companies are unaware of or reputational risk . how and where it is used, and would be unable to identify all their open source code if asked to do so . In this paper, we will examine the most common IP risks that arise from the use of open source software today, As Mark Radcliffe, a partner in the Silicon Valley office of including copyright infringement, patent infringement, DLA Piper specializing in IP and open source, explains, reputational risk, exposure of IP secrets, and the impact on “virtually all software now has a large number of open the partner/customer relationship .
  • Volume 30 Spring 2014

    Volume 30 Spring 2014

    SYRACUSE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LAW VOLUME 30 SPRING 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Mass Copyright Infringement Litigation: Of Trolls, Pornography, Settlement and Joinder Christopher Civil………………………………………………………………………………...2 Notice and Manifestation of Assent to Browse-Wrap Agreements in the Age of Evolving Crawlers, Bots, Spiders and Scrapers: How Courts Are Tethered to Their Application of Register and Cairo and Why Congress Should Mandate Use of the Robots Exclusion Standard to Prevent Circumvention of Responsibility Michael Laven…………………………………………………………………………………..56 Seeing Red: Christian Louboutin’s Protection of His Trademark Through His Battle with Yves St. Laurent Sachpreet Bains…………………………………………………………………………………73 I Need a Lawyer: Establishing Statewide New York Communication Access Fund to Secure Legal Accessibility to Deaf and Hard of Hearing Clients Through Video Remote Interpreting Services in Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act YooNa Lim………………………………………………………………………………………99 Can You Hear Me Now? Spectrum is Shaping the Telecommunication Industry in an Increasingly Connected America James Zino……………………………………………………………………………………..131 Review of “I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy” Edited by: Sarah Richmond, Geraint Rees, and Sarah J.L. Edwards Jenna Furman…………………………………………………………………………………160 SYRACUSE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LAW VOLUME 30 SPRING 2014 2013-2014 EDITORIAL STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Brittany Jones MANAGING EDITOR Tanjeev Thandi LEAD ARTICLE EDITORS FORM & ACCURACY EDITORS Alessandra
  • The New Frontier of Activism - a Study of the Conditioning Factors for the Role of Modern Day Activists

    The New Frontier of Activism - a Study of the Conditioning Factors for the Role of Modern Day Activists

    The new frontier of activism - a study of the conditioning factors for the role of modern day activists Master’s Thesis Andreas Holbak Espersen | MSocSc Political Communication & Management Søren Walther Bjerregård | MSc International Business & Politics Supervisor Erik Caparros Højbjerg | Departmenent of Management, Politics and Philosophy Submitted 7th November 2016 | STUs: 251.792 Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 0 - Research question and literature review ....................................................................................... 6 0.1 Preface ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 0.2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 0.2.1 Research area .................................................................................................................................................................... 9 0.3 Literature review ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 0.3.1 Activism in International
  • Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election

    Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election

    Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Faris, Robert M., Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33759251 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research.
  • Monetizing Infringement

    Monetizing Infringement

    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2020 Monetizing Infringement Kristelia García University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, and the Legislation Commons Citation Information Kristelia García, Monetizing Infringement, 54 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 265 (2020), available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1308. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Monetizing Infringement Kristelia García* The deterrence of copyright infringement and the evils of piracy have long been an axiomatic focus of both legislators and scholars. The conventional view is that infringement must be curbed and/or punished in order for copyright to fulfill its purported goals of incentivizing creation and ensuring access to works. This Essay proves this view false by demonstrating that some rightsholders don’t merely tolerate, but actually encourage infringement, both explicitly and implicitly, in a variety of different situations and for one common reason: they benefit from it.
  • Inmate Litigation Margo Schlanger Harvard Law School, Mschlan@Umich.Edu

    Inmate Litigation Margo Schlanger Harvard Law School, [email protected]

    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2003 Inmate Litigation Margo Schlanger Harvard Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/1296 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Courts Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Schlanger, Margo. "Inmate Litigation." Harv. L. Rev. 116, no. 6 (2003): 1555-706. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 116 APRIL 2003 NUMBER 6 HARVARD LAW REVIEW I ARTICLE INMATE LITIGATION Margo Schlanger TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION r557 I. INMATE LITIGATION TRENDS r565 A. The Varied Subject Matter ofInmate Litigation r570 B. Inmate Litigation Rates r575 C. Inmate Filing Rates over Time: The "Deluge" r578 D. OfBabies and Bath Water: The Processing ofInmate Cases r587 II. OUTCOMES IN INMATE CASES (PRIOR TO THE PLRA) r590 A. Outcomes: The Data r593 B. Outcomes: Explanations r605 1. Limited Legal Rights/Exacting Decision Standard , r605 2. Easy Access to Courts r 607 3. The Absence of Counsel r609 4· Obstacles to Settlement. r6 r4 (a) The Impact of the Low Quality of the Docket r6r4 (b) Asymmetric Information r6r6 (c) Low Litigation Costs r6r7 (d) Perceived High External Settlement Costs r6r7 (e) Corrections Culture r620 5.
  • The (Unfinished) Ballad of Gunslinger/ ©Troll Richard Liebowitz by Steven D

    The (Unfinished) Ballad of Gunslinger/ ©Troll Richard Liebowitz by Steven D

    For exclusive use of MLRC members and other parties specifically authorized by MLRC. © 2019 Media Law Resource Center, Inc. Page 8 August 2019 MLRC MediaLawLetter The (Unfinished) Ballad of Gunslinger/ ©Troll Richard Liebowitz By Steven D. Zansberg You are probably already far more familiar than you wish you were with Richard Liebowitz, the notorious copyright plaintiff’s attorney based in Valley Stream, New York. Mr. Liebowitz has gained notoriety (some might say ignominy) for having filed over 1,500 copyright infringement actions across the nation (some 1,100 in S.D.N.Y.), and having been featured in Slate, The Hollywood Reporter, and even has his own Wikipedia page (do you?). For those fortunate few unfamiliar with Mr. Liebowitz, his entrepreneurial spirit follows a well-developed business model: (1) represent photographers who have registered (or soon will register) their original works (now a requirement for instituting copyright infringement actions, and for recovery of statutory damages of up to $150K/violation plus attorneys’ fees); (2) find infringing (non-licensed) uses of those photos online by using a reverse-image search engine like Google Images, Tin Eye, Pixsy, or Berify; (3) demand an exorbitant amount to settle such cases (typically $25K per photo, most of which would command license fees of, at best, in the tens or hundreds of dollars) and then agree to a settlement figure that is a fraction (often less than half) of the initial extortionate demand. You are probably already far more Because it inevitably would cost more than the insurance familiar than you wish you were deductible to defend such a case, the defendants – many of with Richard Liebowitz, the whom are large media companies – make the rational business notorious copyright plaintiff’s attorney.
  • Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling Matthew As G

    Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling Matthew As G

    Loyola University Chicago, School of Law LAW eCommons Faculty Publications & Other Works 2018 Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling Matthew aS g Jake Haskell Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling Matthew Sag &Jake Haskell * ABSTRACT: In this Article, we offer both a legal and a pragmaticframework for defending against copyright trolls. Lawsuits alleging online copyright infringement by John Doe defendants have accounted for roughly half of all copyright casesfiled in the United States over the past threeyears. In the typical case, the plaintiffs claims of infringement rely on a poorly substantiatedform pleading and are targeted indiscriminately at noninfringers as well as infringers. This practice is a subset of the broaderproblem of opportunistic litigation, but it persists due to certain unique features of copyright law and the technical complexity of Internet technology. The plaintiffs bringing these cases target hundreds or thousands of defendants nationwide and seek quick settlements pricedjust low enough that it is less expensive for the defendant to pay rather than to defend the claim, regardless of the claim's merits. We report new empirical data on the continued growth of this form of copyright trolling in the United States. We also undertake a detailed analysis of the legal andfactual underpinnings of these cases. Despite theirunderlying weakness, plaintiffs have exploited information asymmetries, the high cost of federal court litigation, and the extravagant threat of statutory damages for copyright infringement to leverage settlementsfrom the guilty and the innocent alike.
  • GLOBAL CENSORSHIP Shifting Modes, Persisting Paradigms

    GLOBAL CENSORSHIP Shifting Modes, Persisting Paradigms

    ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH GLOBAL CENSORSHIP Shifting Modes, Persisting Paradigms edited by Pranesh Prakash Nagla Rizk Carlos Affonso Souza GLOBAL CENSORSHIP Shifting Modes, Persisting Paradigms edited by Pranesh Pra ash Nag!a Ri" Car!os Affonso So$"a ACCESS %O KNO'LE(GE RESEARCH SERIES COPYRIGHT PAGE © 2015 Information Society Project, Yale Law School; Access to Knowle !e for "e#elo$ment %entre, American Uni#ersity, %airo; an Instituto de Technolo!ia & Socie a e do Rio+ (his wor, is $'-lishe s'-ject to a %reati#e %ommons Attri-'tion./on%ommercial 0%%.1Y./%2 3+0 In. ternational P'-lic Licence+ %o$yri!ht in each cha$ter of this -oo, -elon!s to its res$ecti#e a'thor0s2+ Yo' are enco'ra!e to re$ro 'ce, share, an a a$t this wor,, in whole or in part, incl' in! in the form of creat . in! translations, as lon! as yo' attri-'te the wor, an the a$$ro$riate a'thor0s2, or, if for the whole -oo,, the e itors+ Te4t of the licence is a#aila-le at <https677creati#ecommons+or!7licenses7-y.nc73+07le!alco e8+ 9or $ermission to $'-lish commercial #ersions of s'ch cha$ter on a stan .alone -asis, $lease contact the a'thor, or the Information Society Project at Yale Law School for assistance in contactin! the a'thor+ 9ront co#er ima!e6 :"oc'ments sei;e from the U+S+ <m-assy in (ehran=, a $'-lic omain wor, create by em$loyees of the Central Intelli!ence A!ency / em-assy of the &nite States of America in Tehran, de$ict.
  • Free Speech Group Fights Lawsuits Vs. News Sharers 30 September 2010, by CRISTINA SILVA , Associated Press Writer

    Free Speech Group Fights Lawsuits Vs. News Sharers 30 September 2010, by CRISTINA SILVA , Associated Press Writer

    Free speech group fights lawsuits vs. news sharers 30 September 2010, By CRISTINA SILVA , Associated Press Writer (AP) -- A San Francisco group that defends online "That's just ridiculous, and the reason it is ridiculous free speech is taking on a Las Vegas company it is that I don't think there has been any defendant says is shaking down news-sharing Internet users that we've called to shake them down for a through more than 140 copyright infringement settlement," he said. lawsuits filed this year. Dozens of the lawsuits have been settled privately, The Electronic Frontier Foundation's counterclaim and Righthaven and Stephens Media declined to represents the first significant challenge to disclose the terms. The EFF says the settlements Righthaven LLC's unprecedented campaign to have averaged about $5,000. police the sharing of news content on blogs, political sites and personal Web pages. Movie and music producers have previously targeted individuals who illegally share copyright At stake is what constitutes fair use - when and content. What makes Righthaven's business model how it is appropriate to share content in an age unique is that it buys copyrights from news where newsmakers increasingly encourage companies like Stephens Media and then readers to share stories on Facebook, Twitter, aggressively files lawsuits without first giving Digg and other social networking sites. defendants a chance to remove the content in question. The EFF argues that the lawsuits limit free speech and bully defendants into costly settlements by Allen Lichtenstein, a lawyer for the Nevada threatening $150,000 in damages and the transfer American Civil Liberties Union, said the lawsuits of domain names.
  • Fake News and Misinformation Policy Lab Practicum (Spring 2017)

    Fake News and Misinformation Policy Lab Practicum (Spring 2017)

    ST ANFORD Fake News & Misinformation Policy Practicum 2017 PRACTICUM RESEARCFacebookH TEAM: Research Team Jacob Finkel, JD ’19, Steven Jiang,Mufan BS ’17, Luo, PhD ‘22 Mufan Luo, PhD ’22, Rebecca Mears, JD/MPP ’19, Danaë Metaxa-Kakavouli, PhD ’20Camille, Peeples, JD ‘18 Camille Peeples, JD ’18, BrendanArjun Sasso, Shenoy,JD ’19, JD ‘19 Arjun Shenoy, JD ’19, Vincent Sheu, JD/MS ’18 , Nicolás Torres-Echeverry, JSM ’17 Google Research Team INSTRUCTOR AND PROJECTDanaë LEAD MetaxaS: -Kakavouli, PhD ‘20 Nicolás Torres-Echeverry, JSM ‘17 SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD Edwin A. Heafey, Jr., Visiting Professor of Law Luciana Herman, Ph.D. Twitter Research Team Lecturer in Law Program Director, Law and Policy LabJacob Finkel, JD ‘19 Steven Jiang, BS ‘17 Ashwin Aravind, JD ‘18 Teaching Assistant Rebecca Mears, JD/MPP ‘19 Katie Joseff, MA ‘19 Research Assistant Reddit Research Team October POLICY CLIENT: Brendan Sasso, JD ‘19 Hewlett Foundation MadisonVincent Initiative Sheu, JD/MS ’18 2017 1 Acknowledgements This report reflects the research and analysis of an inter-disciplinary law and graduate student team enrolled in the Stanford Law School Fake News and Misinformation Policy Lab Practicum (Spring 2017). Under the guidance of instructor Senator Russ Feingold, the Edwin A. Heafey Visiting Professor of Law, the practicum surveyed the roles of four major online platforms in the spread of fake news beginning with the 2016 U.S. election. Assisting Senator Feingold in the practicum were Policy Lab Program Director and Lecturer Luciana Herman, Ph.D., and Teaching Assistant Ashwin Aravind, J.D. ’18. Brendan Sasso, J.D. ’19, served as the exceptional lead student editor for the report.
  • The Public's Burden in a Digital Age: Pressures on Intermediaries and the Privatization of Internet Censorship Julie Adler

    The Public's Burden in a Digital Age: Pressures on Intermediaries and the Privatization of Internet Censorship Julie Adler

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Brooklyn Law School: BrooklynWorks Journal of Law and Policy Volume 20 Issue 1 SYMPOSIUM: Article 8 Adolescents in Society: Their vE olving Legal Status 2011 The Public's Burden in a Digital Age: Pressures on Intermediaries and the Privatization of Internet Censorship Julie Adler Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp Recommended Citation Julie Adler, The Public's Burden in a Digital Age: Pressures on Intermediaries and the Privatization of Internet Censorship, 20 J. L. & Pol'y (2011). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol20/iss1/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Law and Policy by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. THE PUBLIC’S BURDEN IN A DIGITAL AGE: PRESSURES ON INTERMEDIARIES AND THE PRIVATIZATION OF INTERNET CENSORSHIP Julie Adler 1 INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2010, just as Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s U.S. Senate race was heating up,2 so were his efforts to combat prostitution by targeting websites like Craigslist.3 A coalition of state attorneys general (“AGs”) J.D. Candidate, Brooklyn Law School, 2012; B.S., Boston University, 2007. I would like to thank Shaun Clarke and my parents for their love and support. I also wholeheartedly thank Svetlana Mintcheva of the National Coalition Against Censorship for her invaluable guidance throughout the entire Note writing process, and Professor Derek Bambauer for his insights and encouragement. Finally, I thank the editors and staff of the Journal of Law and Policy for going above and beyond the call of duty.